disclosure authority

grumbler

memememememe wrote: »

but they have no right to make me wait while they see if they can get money from the company that have ceased trading. whether they can or cannot is irrelevant.

They have every right to reject your claim without any reason and to leave you with options of either complaining to FOS or suing them.

So, they have every right to do/ask whatever they want. If you don't like this complain to FOS or sue them.

memememememe

grumbler -you are quite right they Can do whatever they want but not necessarily have the Right. the ombudsman have a very dim view of CCs messing people about. and as they dont just take into account the letter of the law but also make their judgement on how they feel the whole thing has been handled "messing people about" is not going to go in the CCs favour.
from the ombudsmans point of view I dont think they would agree its a right somehow. As backed up by the amounts they add onto claims when they feel things have not been handled well.
but yes I get your point.

meer53

OP, you seem to be jumping the gun a bit here. Your claim isn't even under way yet, but you're already assuming you're going to be "messed about" and have to go to the FOS.

Sign the form and sit back whilst your claim is looked into by the CC issuer. You may just find yourself with a refund.

memememememe

chatty chappy - thanks for that - they have demanded an independant proof - which I think is reasonable, and the man has just been and not only has he given me the proof it doesn't work but he has also shown that they fitted the wrong part - a major component - looks good for my "not fit for purpose" claim.
He's gone back to his office to write me up a nice letter.

I'm going to go through the ombudsman ( if needed) before courts as you havent got anything to lose if you dont like their judgement you are not legally bound but the CCs are - they have to do as they are told, you can just go on to court..

I also agree that the courts and ombudsman seem very much on the small mans side and they are far more resonable about whats required as proof etc. as long as your case is legit etc. you shouldn't worry - they see through all of the CCs bumff.
I mean my case is easy to prove it doesnt work - it doesnt produce any power but getting the report from an independant has actually been really good for me.

memememememe

meer 53 - please read my replies and you'll see the CC have already apologised for my treatment - and have said I dont need to sign their form.
So now I'm sitting back waiting for their refusal / refund.

my references to the FOS are only if they refuse or I dont agree to their offer. I hope this isnt the case.
but its good to think ahead and get advice.

grumbler

If I were Tesco, I would pay for repair and/or replacing the wrong "major component" instead of refunding the full cost.

memememememe

grumbler - another good point , thanks. if I was tesco I would suggest that too and I can only think they will. - I think thats why it'll end up at the ombudsman.
my counter argument is that I bought a photovoltaic system - I have no faith that what I've got is fit for purpose in its entirety - it just happens that this is the first thing to fail - if they got this wrong what else is wrong with it?
so it'll be down to the ombudsman to decide what happens. I f they decide replacement is ok then it wouldn't be the end of the world but I would have to make enquiries as to where I stand if it fails again ( eg. if the same or another part fails in a reasonably short time?)
there would be other costs that would have to be considered but again I'd be at the ombudsmans mercy as to what they would be willing to award.



PS - If they go down the route of replace and repair that could potentially cost them more in the long run if it ends up being an ongoing saga. but if there are further fails it would strengthen my case and they could end up having to pay the refund as well at a later date.

PPS - A lot of what could matter is if its considered that I have accepted the goods in terms of the sale of goods act. its because of our right to reject under this act. its based around what is considered a reasonable amount of time - if I have rejected it in a "reasonable" amount of time I can demand a refund - if its considered I've accepted the goods because a "reasonable" amount of time has passed then they can insist on repairing/ replacing.
a reasonable amount of time for solar panels could be quite long.

grumbler

memememememe wrote: »

PS - If they go down the route of replace and repair that could potentially cost them more in the long run if it ends up being an ongoing saga.

Unlikely. The main cost of solar panels is the cost of panels and their instillation. Electronics is cheap. Panels can be damaged, but don't break naturally.

PPS - A lot of what could matter is if its considered that I have accepted the goods in terms of the sale of goods act. its because of our right to reject under this act. its based around what is considered a reasonable amount of time - if I have rejected it in a "reasonable" amount of time I can demand a refund - if its considered I've accepted the goods because a "reasonable" amount of time has passed then they can insist on repairing/ replacing.
a reasonable amount of time for solar panels could be quite long.

It's a delusion, especially as it's a (1) customised (2) installation, not just 'goods'.

memememememe

would it be any different under the supply of goods and services act?

eddddy

Just some thoughts on your refusal to sign a disclosure form...

It seems that the bank want to talk to the company/administrator to get more information to assess your claim for breach of contract.

I would think that the less information they have access to, the less certain they can be about your claim. So they are more likely to reject it.

And I suspect the ombudsman and courts may be less sympathetic towards you, if they think you have unreasonably prevented the bank from getting relevant information (which might have allowed an out of court settlement).